Underleading AK after OLOOT

[Trinidad]

I can believe that was their intent. But if so, I hope we can agree that they expressed it incredibly poorly.

I cannot understand how one can write an interpretation of this Law in the WBF minutes in 1998 and then -when this law is rewritten in 2007- write it up in such a way that it accidentally goes against the minutes of 1998.

 

If it was the intent of the WBFLC that this Law should be interpreted as in the 1998 minutes, they could have simply copied and pasted the minutes into this Law. Instead, they came up with a whole new formulation, not mentioning anything from the 1998 minutes. One can only conclude that it was the WBFLC's intent to throw the interpretation from the 1998 minutes out of the window.

 

Rik

[dburn]

Until I read (with more or less total incredulity) the White Book's pronouncement that it's OK to go around underplaying KQJ when your side has committed the infraction of producing the Ace as a penalty card, I had thought that:

 

"Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card" meant simply that you were allowed to know that partner played a penalty card because he had to; you did not have to treat (say) the 10 as the start of a peter, or as an encouraging signal, because you were allowed to know that partner had to play it.

 

"Other information derived from sight of a penalty card" meant simply that you weren't allowed to know what the card actually was until partner had played it (just as if it weren't a penalty card at all, but had remained concealed in his hand until he exposed it in the normal course of leading or following suit).

 

I still think that's what the law says. Has the WBF made any pronouncement?

[jallerton]

Until I read (with more or less total incredulity) the White Book's pronouncement that it's OK to go around underplaying KQJ when your side has committed the infraction of producing the Ace as a penalty card, I had thought that:

 

"Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card" meant simply that you were allowed to know that partner played a penalty card because he had to; you did not have to treat (say) the 10 as the start of a peter, or as an encouraging signal, because you were allowed to know that partner had to play it.

 

"Other information derived from sight of a penalty card" meant simply that you weren't allowed to know what the card actually was until partner had played it (just as if it weren't a penalty card at all, but had remained concealed in his hand until he exposed it in the normal course of leading or following suit).

 

I still think that's what the law says. Has the WBF made any pronouncement?

 

David: the pronouncement you have read with incredulity is not something invented by current or former editors of The White Book, or even by the EBU L&E Committee of which you are probably the longest serving current member. The offending paragraphs are marked [WBFLC] which means that they are taken directly from a WBFLC misinterpretation.

 

Whilst I stick by my earlier contention that the 1998 minute should be superseded by the 2007 Law 50E (whatever that means), I think I understand the reason why it it still features in the current White Book.

 

In October 2008 (so just after the 2007 Laws had come into force), the WBFLC published the following:

 

Law 50E

 

Mr. DiSacco asks that examples be provided of the application of this law.

A distinction must be made between the requirement that the player must play this card and information the player has the card. Initially the underlead from KQJx to partner’s Ax is allowed, but subsequently the Director may decide that 50E3 applies. Mr.Bavin observes that the player must convince the Director that he has not gained from the information that the player possesses the card. This continues the WBF Laws Committee decision made in previous years.

 

The last sentence is confusing. Does "decisions in previous years" refer to the 2007 Laws, or to the 1998 minute as well?

[jallerton]

I disagree with both of these interpretations.

 

I believe the original draft of this law made the identity of the penalty card unauthorized for the offending side, then the law was changed to mitigate the effects of offender's partner crashing honours, which was considered too high a price to pay for exposing a card. So offender's partner is not allowed to know that offender has ♠Q, but if the restrictions upon them still permit them to lead a spade or play to a spade trick, they are allowed to know that the card offender must play to this trick will be the queen and use that knowledge to, for instance, avoid crashing honours.

 

You refer to the "original draft of this Law", but can you explain why this interpretation is consistent with 2007 Law 50E?

[dburn]

David: the pronouncement you have read with incredulity is not something invented by current or former editors of The White Book, or even by the EBU L&E Committee of which you are probably the longest serving current member. The offending paragraphs are marked [WBFLC] which means that they are taken directly from a WBFLC misinterpretation.

I am, I think I have remarked,

Terrifically old.

The second Ice Age was a farce -

The first was rather cold.

 

But either I have gone completely gaga or the White Book has. On the one hand it says:

 

"partner may choose the card to lead from the suit on the basis of that knowledge (e.g. may lead small from KQJx when partner’s penalty card is the Ace)"

 

and on the other hand it says:

 

"However, they may not act as though they know partner has that card."

 

when no one would actually lead low from KQJx unless they knew that partner had the Ace.

 

What jallerton says about what the WBFLC published in October 2008 is illuminating. Not that it casts any light on what should happen when players have penalty cards - indeed, it casts that question further into darkness - but...